Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 511

control, N = 251

treatment, N = 261

p-value2

age

51

51.12 ± 12.43 (25 - 74)

50.50 ± 13.00 (25 - 74)

51.71 ± 12.08 (32 - 72)

0.732

gender

51

0.322

f

34 (67%)

15 (60%)

19 (73%)

m

17 (33%)

10 (40%)

7 (27%)

occupation

51

0.975

day_training

1 (2.0%)

1 (4.0%)

0 (0%)

full_time

5 (9.8%)

3 (12%)

2 (7.7%)

homemaker

4 (7.8%)

2 (8.0%)

2 (7.7%)

other

2 (3.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (7.7%)

part_time

9 (18%)

5 (20%)

4 (15%)

retired

13 (25%)

6 (24%)

7 (27%)

self_employ

2 (3.9%)

1 (4.0%)

1 (3.8%)

t_and_e

2 (3.9%)

1 (4.0%)

1 (3.8%)

unemploy

13 (25%)

6 (24%)

7 (27%)

marital

51

>0.999

divore

5 (9.8%)

3 (12%)

2 (7.7%)

married

11 (22%)

5 (20%)

6 (23%)

none

29 (57%)

14 (56%)

15 (58%)

seperation

3 (5.9%)

2 (8.0%)

1 (3.8%)

widow

3 (5.9%)

1 (4.0%)

2 (7.7%)

edu

51

0.916

bachelor

14 (27%)

6 (24%)

8 (31%)

diploma

9 (18%)

6 (24%)

3 (12%)

hd_ad

2 (3.9%)

1 (4.0%)

1 (3.8%)

postgraduate

4 (7.8%)

2 (8.0%)

2 (7.7%)

primary

4 (7.8%)

1 (4.0%)

3 (12%)

secondary_1_3

4 (7.8%)

2 (8.0%)

2 (7.7%)

secondary_4_5

13 (25%)

7 (28%)

6 (23%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.0%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.8%)

fam_income

51

0.673

10001_12000

3 (5.9%)

1 (4.0%)

2 (7.7%)

12001_14000

2 (3.9%)

2 (8.0%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

5 (9.8%)

2 (8.0%)

3 (12%)

16001_18000

2 (3.9%)

1 (4.0%)

1 (3.8%)

18001_20000

2 (3.9%)

2 (8.0%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (18%)

6 (24%)

3 (12%)

2001_4000

6 (12%)

3 (12%)

3 (12%)

4001_6000

7 (14%)

3 (12%)

4 (15%)

6001_8000

6 (12%)

3 (12%)

3 (12%)

8001_10000

4 (7.8%)

1 (4.0%)

3 (12%)

below_2000

5 (9.8%)

1 (4.0%)

4 (15%)

medication

51

42 (82%)

21 (84%)

21 (81%)

>0.999

onset_duration

51

15.90 ± 12.38 (0 - 56)

17.66 ± 13.98 (1 - 56)

14.21 ± 10.63 (0 - 35)

0.326

onset_age

51

35.22 ± 12.98 (15 - 62)

32.85 ± 11.65 (16 - 55)

37.50 ± 14.00 (15 - 62)

0.204

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 511

control, N = 251

treatment, N = 261

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

51

3.31 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.24 ± 1.33 (1 - 5)

3.38 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

0.682

recovery_stage_b

51

18.18 ± 2.70 (9 - 23)

18.28 ± 2.85 (9 - 23)

18.08 ± 2.59 (14 - 23)

0.791

ras_confidence

51

30.61 ± 4.78 (19 - 40)

30.32 ± 4.34 (19 - 40)

30.88 ± 5.23 (20 - 39)

0.677

ras_willingness

51

12.33 ± 1.93 (7 - 15)

12.36 ± 1.70 (9 - 15)

12.31 ± 2.15 (7 - 15)

0.924

ras_goal

51

17.71 ± 2.87 (12 - 24)

17.64 ± 2.86 (12 - 23)

17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)

0.874

ras_reliance

51

13.39 ± 3.03 (8 - 20)

13.20 ± 2.80 (8 - 18)

13.58 ± 3.28 (8 - 20)

0.661

ras_domination

51

10.06 ± 2.34 (3 - 15)

10.72 ± 1.86 (7 - 15)

9.42 ± 2.59 (3 - 14)

0.046

symptom

51

29.88 ± 9.83 (14 - 56)

29.12 ± 8.69 (14 - 45)

30.62 ± 10.93 (15 - 56)

0.592

slof_work

51

22.71 ± 4.74 (10 - 30)

23.04 ± 4.53 (15 - 30)

22.38 ± 5.00 (10 - 30)

0.627

slof_relationship

51

25.90 ± 5.87 (11 - 35)

25.88 ± 6.35 (13 - 35)

25.92 ± 5.51 (11 - 35)

0.979

satisfaction

51

20.67 ± 6.76 (5 - 30)

19.32 ± 6.41 (5 - 29)

21.96 ± 6.95 (5 - 30)

0.165

mhc_emotional

51

11.33 ± 3.63 (4 - 18)

10.96 ± 3.10 (6 - 17)

11.69 ± 4.10 (4 - 18)

0.476

mhc_social

51

14.84 ± 5.02 (6 - 26)

15.12 ± 5.03 (7 - 26)

14.58 ± 5.10 (6 - 23)

0.704

mhc_psychological

51

22.10 ± 6.17 (6 - 36)

21.72 ± 5.98 (10 - 33)

22.46 ± 6.45 (6 - 36)

0.673

resilisnce

51

16.92 ± 4.68 (6 - 25)

16.68 ± 4.67 (6 - 24)

17.15 ± 4.76 (7 - 25)

0.721

social_provision

51

13.65 ± 3.18 (5 - 20)

13.40 ± 2.89 (8 - 20)

13.88 ± 3.48 (5 - 19)

0.592

els_value_living

51

17.20 ± 3.03 (5 - 23)

16.88 ± 2.49 (12 - 22)

17.50 ± 3.49 (5 - 23)

0.470

els_life_fulfill

51

13.00 ± 3.34 (4 - 18)

12.08 ± 3.28 (5 - 17)

13.88 ± 3.22 (4 - 18)

0.053

els

51

30.20 ± 5.66 (9 - 40)

28.96 ± 4.70 (20 - 36)

31.38 ± 6.31 (9 - 40)

0.127

social_connect

51

26.78 ± 9.72 (8 - 48)

26.96 ± 8.59 (8 - 45)

26.62 ± 10.87 (8 - 48)

0.901

shs_agency

51

14.22 ± 4.74 (3 - 20)

13.60 ± 4.51 (3 - 20)

14.81 ± 4.97 (3 - 20)

0.369

shs_pathway

51

16.57 ± 3.84 (4 - 22)

15.96 ± 3.65 (8 - 22)

17.15 ± 4.01 (4 - 22)

0.272

shs

51

30.78 ± 8.00 (7 - 42)

29.56 ± 7.75 (14 - 41)

31.96 ± 8.20 (7 - 42)

0.288

esteem

51

12.53 ± 1.25 (10 - 15)

12.64 ± 1.19 (10 - 14)

12.42 ± 1.33 (10 - 15)

0.542

mlq_search

51

15.25 ± 3.30 (3 - 21)

15.12 ± 3.24 (6 - 21)

15.38 ± 3.41 (3 - 20)

0.778

mlq_presence

51

13.84 ± 4.03 (3 - 21)

14.16 ± 3.16 (6 - 20)

13.54 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

0.587

mlq

51

29.10 ± 6.72 (6 - 41)

29.28 ± 6.19 (12 - 40)

28.92 ± 7.32 (6 - 41)

0.852

empower

51

19.86 ± 4.31 (6 - 28)

19.76 ± 3.87 (11 - 24)

19.96 ± 4.77 (6 - 28)

0.869

ismi_resistance

51

14.80 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

14.84 ± 2.29 (12 - 19)

14.77 ± 3.28 (5 - 20)

0.929

ismi_discrimation

51

11.29 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)

12.20 ± 3.03 (5 - 18)

10.42 ± 3.15 (5 - 19)

0.046

sss_affective

51

9.78 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

10.36 ± 3.60 (3 - 18)

9.23 ± 4.62 (3 - 18)

0.337

sss_behavior

51

9.57 ± 4.29 (3 - 18)

10.28 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)

8.88 ± 4.27 (3 - 18)

0.250

sss_cognitive

51

8.14 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)

8.20 ± 4.19 (3 - 18)

8.08 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

0.917

sss

51

27.49 ± 11.69 (9 - 54)

28.84 ± 10.74 (9 - 54)

26.19 ± 12.61 (9 - 54)

0.424

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.24

0.236

2.78, 3.70

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.145

0.330

-0.502, 0.792

0.663

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.654

0.337

-0.007, 1.31

0.064

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.263

0.476

-1.20, 0.670

0.585

Pseudo R square

0.043

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.3

0.552

17.2, 19.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.203

0.774

-1.72, 1.31

0.794

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.012

0.693

-1.35, 1.37

0.986

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.422

0.979

-1.50, 2.34

0.670

Pseudo R square

0.003

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.3

1.035

28.3, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.565

1.450

-2.28, 3.41

0.698

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.727

1.191

-1.61, 3.06

0.547

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.577

1.683

-3.88, 2.72

0.734

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.4

0.387

11.6, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.052

0.542

-1.11, 1.01

0.923

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.795

0.439

-1.66, 0.066

0.082

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.988

0.621

-0.228, 2.20

0.124

Pseudo R square

0.023

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.6

0.622

16.4, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.129

0.871

-1.58, 1.84

0.883

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.728

0.726

-2.15, 0.695

0.325

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.954

1.026

-1.06, 2.96

0.360

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.593

12.0, 14.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.377

0.831

-1.25, 2.00

0.652

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.078

0.515

-1.09, 0.931

0.881

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.24

0.728

-0.184, 2.67

0.102

Pseudo R square

0.032

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.7

0.464

9.81, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.30

0.649

-2.57, -0.024

0.050

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.475

0.688

-1.82, 0.874

0.495

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.29

0.971

-0.617, 3.19

0.195

Pseudo R square

0.054

symptom

(Intercept)

29.1

1.999

25.2, 33.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.50

2.799

-3.99, 6.98

0.595

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.798

1.366

-3.48, 1.88

0.565

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.50

1.932

-5.29, 2.28

0.445

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

23.0

0.953

21.2, 24.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.655

1.334

-3.27, 1.96

0.625

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.267

0.830

-1.89, 1.36

0.751

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.352

1.173

-2.65, 1.95

0.767

Pseudo R square

0.008

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.9

1.203

23.5, 28.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.043

1.684

-3.26, 3.34

0.980

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.47

1.221

-3.86, 0.925

0.241

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.15

1.725

-2.23, 4.53

0.513

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.3

1.397

16.6, 22.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.64

1.956

-1.19, 6.48

0.182

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.33

1.650

-0.906, 5.56

0.170

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.76

2.332

-6.33, 2.81

0.458

Pseudo R square

0.034

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.0

0.737

9.52, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.732

1.032

-1.29, 2.75

0.481

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.898

0.700

-0.474, 2.27

0.212

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.48

0.990

-3.42, 0.462

0.149

Pseudo R square

0.010

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

1.073

13.0, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.543

1.503

-3.49, 2.40

0.719

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.39

1.235

-1.03, 3.81

0.271

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.06

1.745

-4.48, 2.36

0.548

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.7

1.315

19.1, 24.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.742

1.841

-2.87, 4.35

0.689

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.22

1.462

-1.65, 4.08

0.413

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.89

2.067

-5.94, 2.16

0.368

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.7

0.901

14.9, 18.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.474

1.262

-2.00, 2.95

0.709

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.911

0.971

-0.992, 2.81

0.358

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.422

1.372

-2.27, 3.11

0.761

Pseudo R square

0.018

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.617

12.2, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.485

0.865

-1.21, 2.18

0.577

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.477

0.653

-1.76, 0.803

0.472

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.21

0.923

-0.599, 3.02

0.202

Pseudo R square

0.027

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.607

15.7, 18.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.620

0.850

-1.05, 2.29

0.468

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.659

0.667

-0.647, 1.97

0.332

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.055

0.942

-1.79, 1.90

0.954

Pseudo R square

0.021

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.1

0.637

10.8, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.80

0.892

0.056, 3.55

0.048

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.50

0.703

0.125, 2.88

0.043

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.12

0.994

-3.07, 0.830

0.272

Pseudo R square

0.073

els

(Intercept)

29.0

1.120

26.8, 31.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.42

1.568

-0.649, 5.50

0.128

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.12

1.181

-0.193, 4.44

0.084

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.03

1.670

-4.30, 2.24

0.542

Pseudo R square

0.052

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.0

1.912

23.2, 30.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.345

2.677

-5.59, 4.90

0.898

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.80

1.302

-0.748, 4.35

0.180

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.356

1.840

-3.96, 3.25

0.848

Pseudo R square

0.007

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.6

0.951

11.7, 15.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.21

1.333

-1.40, 3.82

0.369

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.494

0.957

-1.38, 2.37

0.611

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.60

1.352

-1.05, 4.25

0.249

Pseudo R square

0.051

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.745

14.5, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.19

1.044

-0.852, 3.24

0.258

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.518

0.751

-0.954, 1.99

0.497

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.005

1.062

-2.08, 2.09

0.997

Pseudo R square

0.029

shs

(Intercept)

29.6

1.577

26.5, 32.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.40

2.208

-1.93, 6.73

0.282

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.930

1.490

-1.99, 3.85

0.539

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.67

2.106

-2.46, 5.79

0.437

Pseudo R square

0.045

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.240

12.2, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.217

0.337

-0.877, 0.443

0.522

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.905

0.435

0.053, 1.76

0.041

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.419

0.613

-1.62, 0.783

0.496

Pseudo R square

0.090

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.1

0.659

13.8, 16.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.265

0.923

-1.54, 2.07

0.775

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.403

0.946

-1.45, 2.26

0.674

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.608

1.336

-3.23, 2.01

0.653

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

14.2

0.794

12.6, 15.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.622

1.112

-2.80, 1.56

0.578

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.647

0.944

-1.20, 2.50

0.499

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.012

1.333

-2.60, 2.63

0.993

Pseudo R square

0.012

mlq

(Intercept)

29.3

1.348

26.6, 31.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.357

1.888

-4.06, 3.34

0.851

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.04

1.722

-2.34, 4.41

0.553

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.593

2.433

-5.36, 4.17

0.809

Pseudo R square

0.005

empower

(Intercept)

19.8

0.843

18.1, 21.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.202

1.181

-2.11, 2.52

0.865

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.327

0.550

-0.750, 1.40

0.558

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.044

0.777

-1.48, 1.57

0.956

Pseudo R square

0.002

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.8

0.527

13.8, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.071

0.738

-1.52, 1.37

0.924

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.613

0.721

-0.800, 2.03

0.403

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.460

1.019

-2.46, 1.54

0.655

Pseudo R square

0.008

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.2

0.635

11.0, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.78

0.889

-3.52, -0.035

0.050

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.19

0.692

-2.54, 0.171

0.098

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.34

0.978

-0.580, 3.26

0.183

Pseudo R square

0.059

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.820

8.75, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.13

1.148

-3.38, 1.12

0.330

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.048

0.593

-1.11, 1.21

0.936

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.344

0.838

-1.99, 1.30

0.686

Pseudo R square

0.023

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.3

0.833

8.65, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.40

1.167

-3.68, 0.892

0.237

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.713

0.713

-2.11, 0.683

0.327

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.716

1.007

-1.26, 2.69

0.484

Pseudo R square

0.023

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.20

0.843

6.55, 9.85

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.123

1.180

-2.44, 2.19

0.917

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.686

0.697

-0.680, 2.05

0.336

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.880

0.986

-2.81, 1.05

0.382

Pseudo R square

0.005

sss

(Intercept)

28.8

2.325

24.3, 33.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.65

3.257

-9.03, 3.74

0.420

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.069

1.559

-2.99, 3.12

0.965

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.500

2.204

-4.82, 3.82

0.823

Pseudo R square

0.015

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.24 (95% CI [2.78, 3.70], t(67) = 13.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.79], t(67) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-6.91e-03, 1.31], t(67) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-5.92e-03, 1.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.67], t(67) = -0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.28 (95% CI [17.20, 19.36], t(67) = 33.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.31], t(67) = -0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.37], t(67) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.42e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.34], t(67) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.85])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.32 (95% CI [28.29, 32.35], t(67) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.28, 3.41], t(67) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.61, 3.06], t(67) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-3.88, 2.72], t(67) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.60, 13.12], t(67) = 31.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.01], t(67) = -0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.07], t(67) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.20], t(67) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.64 (95% CI [16.42, 18.86], t(67) = 28.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.84], t(67) = 0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-2.15, 0.69], t(67) = -1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.96], t(67) = 0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.93])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.04, 14.36], t(67) = 22.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.00], t(67) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.93], t(67) = -0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.67], t(67) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.89])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.72 (95% CI [9.81, 11.63], t(67) = 23.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.57, -0.02], t(67) = -2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.09, -0.01])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.87], t(67) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.19], t(67) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.12 (95% CI [25.20, 33.04], t(67) = 14.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-3.99, 6.98], t(67) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.88], t(67) = -0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-5.29, 2.28], t(67) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.04 (95% CI [21.17, 24.91], t(67) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-3.27, 1.96], t(67) = -0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.36], t(67) = -0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.65, 1.95], t(67) = -0.30, p = 0.764; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.88 (95% CI [23.52, 28.24], t(67) = 21.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-3.26, 3.34], t(67) = 0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = 7.28e-03, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.86, 0.92], t(67) = -1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-2.23, 4.53], t(67) = 0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.32 (95% CI [16.58, 22.06], t(67) = 13.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.64, 95% CI [-1.19, 6.48], t(67) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.91])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.33, 95% CI [-0.91, 5.56], t(67) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-6.33, 2.81], t(67) = -0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.96 (95% CI [9.52, 12.40], t(67) = 14.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.75], t(67) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.27], t(67) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.63])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-3.42, 0.46], t(67) = -1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.02, 17.22], t(67) = 14.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.49, 2.40], t(67) = -0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 3.81], t(67) = 1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.70])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-4.48, 2.36], t(67) = -0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.72 (95% CI [19.14, 24.30], t(67) = 16.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-2.87, 4.35], t(67) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.65, 4.08], t(67) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.62])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.89, 95% CI [-5.94, 2.16], t(67) = -0.92, p = 0.360; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.68 (95% CI [14.91, 18.45], t(67) = 18.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.00, 2.95], t(67) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.99, 2.81], t(67) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-2.27, 3.11], t(67) = 0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.40 (95% CI [12.19, 14.61], t(67) = 21.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.21, 2.18], t(67) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.80], t(67) = -0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 3.02], t(67) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.98])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [15.69, 18.07], t(67) = 27.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.29], t(67) = 0.73, p = 0.466; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.97], t(67) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.63])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.79, 1.90], t(67) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.08 (95% CI [10.83, 13.33], t(67) = 18.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [0.06, 3.55], t(67) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.02, 1.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [0.13, 2.88], t(67) = 2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.04, 0.87])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-3.07, 0.83], t(67) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.96 (95% CI [26.77, 31.15], t(67) = 25.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.42, 95% CI [-0.65, 5.50], t(67) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.94])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 4.44], t(67) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.76])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-4.30, 2.24], t(67) = -0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.96 (95% CI [23.21, 30.71], t(67) = 14.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-5.59, 4.90], t(67) = -0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [-0.75, 4.35], t(67) = 1.39, p = 0.166; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-3.96, 3.25], t(67) = -0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.60 (95% CI [11.74, 15.46], t(67) = 14.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.40, 3.82], t(67) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.37], t(67) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-1.05, 4.25], t(67) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.88])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.50, 17.42], t(67) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.85, 3.24], t(67) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.99], t(67) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.61e-03, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.09], t(67) = 4.35e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = 1.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [26.47, 32.65], t(67) = 18.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.40, 95% CI [-1.93, 6.73], t(67) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-1.99, 3.85], t(67) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-2.46, 5.79], t(67) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.64 (95% CI [12.17, 13.11], t(67) = 52.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.44], t(67) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [0.05, 1.76], t(67) = 2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.04, 1.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.78], t(67) = -0.68, p = 0.494; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.83, 16.41], t(67) = 22.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.54, 2.07], t(67) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.26], t(67) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.70])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-3.23, 2.01], t(67) = -0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.16 (95% CI [12.60, 15.72], t(67) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.80, 1.56], t(67) = -0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.20, 2.50], t(67) = 0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.63])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.63], t(67) = 8.85e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 3.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.28 (95% CI [26.64, 31.92], t(67) = 21.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-4.06, 3.34], t(67) = -0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-2.34, 4.41], t(67) = 0.60, p = 0.547; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.67])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-5.36, 4.17], t(67) = -0.24, p = 0.807; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.76 (95% CI [18.11, 21.41], t(67) = 23.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.52], t(67) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.40], t(67) = 0.60, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.57], t(67) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.81, 15.87], t(67) = 28.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.37], t(67) = -0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.03], t(67) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.46, 1.54], t(67) = -0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [10.96, 13.44], t(67) = 19.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-3.52, -0.03], t(67) = -2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.07, -0.01])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.54, 0.17], t(67) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.58, 3.26], t(67) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.99])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.36 (95% CI [8.75, 11.97], t(67) = 12.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.12], t(67) = -0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.21], t(67) = 0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.30], t(67) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.28 (95% CI [8.65, 11.91], t(67) = 12.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-3.68, 0.89], t(67) = -1.20, p = 0.232; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.68], t(67) = -1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.69], t(67) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.20 (95% CI [6.55, 9.85], t(67) = 9.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.44, 2.19], t(67) = -0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.05], t(67) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.81, 1.05], t(67) = -0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [24.28, 33.40], t(67) = 12.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.65, 95% CI [-9.03, 3.74], t(67) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.99, 3.12], t(67) = 0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = 5.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-4.82, 3.82], t(67) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

232.392

239.264

-113.196

226.392

recovery_stage_a

random

6

233.458

247.201

-110.729

221.458

4.935

3

0.177

recovery_stage_b

null

3

347.478

354.349

-170.739

341.478

recovery_stage_b

random

6

353.048

366.791

-170.524

341.048

0.430

3

0.934

ras_confidence

null

3

435.900

442.772

-214.950

429.900

ras_confidence

random

6

441.401

455.144

-214.700

429.401

0.499

3

0.919

ras_willingness

null

3

294.814

301.685

-144.407

288.814

ras_willingness

random

6

297.225

310.968

-142.612

285.225

3.589

3

0.309

ras_goal

null

3

362.901

369.773

-178.451

356.901

ras_goal

random

6

367.549

381.291

-177.774

355.549

1.353

3

0.717

ras_reliance

null

3

348.374

355.245

-171.187

342.374

ras_reliance

random

6

348.567

362.310

-168.283

336.567

5.807

3

0.121

ras_domination

null

3

332.077

338.948

-163.038

326.077

ras_domination

random

6

333.480

347.223

-160.740

321.480

4.596

3

0.204

symptom

null

3

513.159

520.031

-253.580

507.159

symptom

random

6

515.775

529.518

-251.888

503.775

3.384

3

0.336

slof_work

null

3

412.907

419.779

-203.454

406.907

slof_work

random

6

417.867

431.609

-202.933

405.867

1.041

3

0.791

slof_relationship

null

3

453.798

460.670

-223.899

447.798

slof_relationship

random

6

458.246

471.989

-223.123

446.246

1.552

3

0.670

satisfaction

null

3

483.774

490.645

-238.887

477.774

satisfaction

random

6

486.176

499.919

-237.088

474.176

3.598

3

0.308

mhc_emotional

null

3

380.508

387.380

-187.254

374.508

mhc_emotional

random

6

383.967

397.709

-185.983

371.967

2.542

3

0.468

mhc_social

null

3

442.429

449.300

-218.214

436.429

mhc_social

random

6

446.705

460.448

-217.353

434.705

1.723

3

0.632

mhc_psychological

null

3

469.956

476.827

-231.978

463.956

mhc_psychological

random

6

474.963

488.706

-231.481

462.963

0.993

3

0.803

resilisnce

null

3

415.570

422.442

-204.785

409.570

resilisnce

random

6

418.548

432.290

-203.274

406.548

3.023

3

0.388

social_provision

null

3

359.337

366.209

-176.669

353.337

social_provision

random

6

362.598

376.341

-175.299

350.598

2.739

3

0.434

els_value_living

null

3

358.364

365.236

-176.182

352.364

els_value_living

random

6

361.540

375.283

-174.770

349.540

2.825

3

0.419

els_life_fulfill

null

3

370.934

377.805

-182.467

364.934

els_life_fulfill

random

6

368.871

382.614

-178.436

356.871

8.063

3

0.045

els

null

3

449.616

456.487

-221.808

443.616

els

random

6

449.397

463.140

-218.699

437.397

6.218

3

0.101

social_connect

null

3

506.326

513.197

-250.163

500.326

social_connect

random

6

509.114

522.857

-248.557

497.114

3.212

3

0.360

shs_agency

null

3

424.174

431.045

-209.087

418.174

shs_agency

random

6

423.657

437.399

-205.828

411.657

6.517

3

0.089

shs_pathway

null

3

384.472

391.344

-189.236

378.472

shs_pathway

random

6

388.076

401.819

-188.038

376.076

2.396

3

0.494

shs

null

3

494.023

500.895

-244.012

488.023

shs

random

6

494.824

508.566

-241.412

482.824

5.200

3

0.158

esteem

null

3

243.133

250.004

-118.566

237.133

esteem

random

6

241.951

255.693

-114.975

229.951

7.182

3

0.066

mlq_search

null

3

377.955

384.826

-185.978

371.955

mlq_search

random

6

383.698

397.441

-185.849

371.698

0.257

3

0.968

mlq_presence

null

3

399.320

406.192

-196.660

393.320

mlq_presence

random

6

403.944

417.687

-195.972

391.944

1.376

3

0.711

mlq

null

3

478.573

485.444

-236.286

472.573

mlq

random

6

484.031

497.774

-236.015

472.031

0.542

3

0.910

empower

null

3

382.599

389.470

-188.299

376.599

empower

random

6

387.696

401.439

-187.848

375.696

0.902

3

0.825

ismi_resistance

null

3

344.203

351.074

-169.101

338.203

ismi_resistance

random

6

349.326

363.069

-168.663

337.326

0.877

3

0.831

ismi_discrimation

null

3

367.814

374.685

-180.907

361.814

ismi_discrimation

random

6

367.844

381.586

-177.922

355.844

5.970

3

0.113

sss_affective

null

3

383.472

390.343

-188.736

377.472

sss_affective

random

6

388.042

401.784

-188.021

376.042

1.430

3

0.698

sss_behavior

null

3

393.834

400.705

-193.917

387.834

sss_behavior

random

6

397.575

411.317

-192.787

385.575

2.259

3

0.520

sss_cognitive

null

3

392.989

399.861

-193.495

386.989

sss_cognitive

random

6

397.794

411.537

-192.897

385.794

1.195

3

0.754

sss

null

3

531.878

538.750

-262.939

525.878

sss

random

6

537.037

550.780

-262.519

525.037

0.841

3

0.840

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

25

3.24 ± 1.18

26

3.38 ± 1.18

0.663

-0.169

recovery_stage_a

2nd

11

3.89 ± 1.12

-0.763

11

3.78 ± 1.12

-0.456

0.805

0.139

recovery_stage_b

1st

25

18.28 ± 2.76

26

18.08 ± 2.76

0.794

0.118

recovery_stage_b

2nd

11

18.29 ± 2.48

-0.007

11

18.51 ± 2.48

-0.252

0.837

-0.127

ras_confidence

1st

25

30.32 ± 5.18

26

30.88 ± 5.18

0.698

-0.193

ras_confidence

2nd

11

31.05 ± 4.50

-0.248

11

31.03 ± 4.47

-0.051

0.995

0.004

ras_willingness

1st

25

12.36 ± 1.94

26

12.31 ± 1.94

0.923

0.049

ras_willingness

2nd

11

11.56 ± 1.67

0.738

11

12.50 ± 1.66

-0.179

0.193

-0.868

ras_goal

1st

25

17.64 ± 3.11

26

17.77 ± 3.11

0.883

-0.072

ras_goal

2nd

11

16.91 ± 2.72

0.407

11

18.00 ± 2.70

-0.127

0.352

-0.606

ras_reliance

1st

25

13.20 ± 2.97

26

13.58 ± 2.97

0.652

-0.304

ras_reliance

2nd

11

13.12 ± 2.34

0.063

11

14.74 ± 2.32

-0.940

0.107

-1.308

ras_domination

1st

25

10.72 ± 2.32

26

9.42 ± 2.32

0.050

0.736

ras_domination

2nd

11

10.25 ± 2.24

0.269

11

10.24 ± 2.24

-0.461

0.992

0.006

symptom

1st

25

29.12 ± 9.99

26

30.62 ± 9.99

0.595

-0.460

symptom

2nd

11

28.32 ± 7.44

0.245

11

28.31 ± 7.35

0.708

0.998

0.003

slof_work

1st

25

23.04 ± 4.76

26

22.38 ± 4.76

0.625

0.328

slof_work

2nd

11

22.77 ± 3.76

0.134

11

21.77 ± 3.73

0.310

0.530

0.505

slof_relationship

1st

25

25.88 ± 6.01

26

25.92 ± 6.01

0.980

-0.015

slof_relationship

2nd

11

24.41 ± 4.99

0.495

11

25.60 ± 4.95

0.108

0.576

-0.401

satisfaction

1st

25

19.32 ± 6.98

26

21.96 ± 6.98

0.182

-0.649

satisfaction

2nd

11

21.65 ± 6.13

-0.572

11

22.53 ± 6.10

-0.140

0.736

-0.217

mhc_emotional

1st

25

10.96 ± 3.68

26

11.69 ± 3.68

0.481

-0.433

mhc_emotional

2nd

11

11.86 ± 2.99

-0.531

11

11.11 ± 2.96

0.343

0.558

0.441

mhc_social

1st

25

15.12 ± 5.37

26

14.58 ± 5.37

0.719

0.179

mhc_social

2nd

11

16.51 ± 4.66

-0.457

11

14.90 ± 4.64

-0.107

0.421

0.529

mhc_psychological

1st

25

21.72 ± 6.57

26

22.46 ± 6.57

0.689

-0.207

mhc_psychological

2nd

11

22.94 ± 5.64

-0.340

11

21.79 ± 5.60

0.189

0.632

0.322

resilisnce

1st

25

16.68 ± 4.51

26

17.15 ± 4.51

0.709

-0.200

resilisnce

2nd

11

17.59 ± 3.82

-0.384

11

18.49 ± 3.79

-0.562

0.583

-0.378

social_provision

1st

25

13.40 ± 3.09

26

13.88 ± 3.09

0.577

-0.304

social_provision

2nd

11

12.92 ± 2.60

0.299

11

14.62 ± 2.58

-0.461

0.129

-1.065

els_value_living

1st

25

16.88 ± 3.03

26

17.50 ± 3.03

0.469

-0.380

els_value_living

2nd

11

17.54 ± 2.59

-0.404

11

18.21 ± 2.57

-0.438

0.542

-0.414

els_life_fulfill

1st

25

12.08 ± 3.19

26

13.88 ± 3.19

0.048

-1.048

els_life_fulfill

2nd

11

13.58 ± 2.72

-0.874

11

14.27 ± 2.71

-0.224

0.555

-0.399

els

1st

25

28.96 ± 5.60

26

31.38 ± 5.60

0.128

-0.842

els

2nd

11

31.08 ± 4.71

-0.737

11

32.48 ± 4.68

-0.379

0.489

-0.484

social_connect

1st

25

26.96 ± 9.56

26

26.62 ± 9.56

0.898

0.111

social_connect

2nd

11

28.76 ± 7.11

-0.582

11

28.06 ± 7.02

-0.467

0.817

0.226

shs_agency

1st

25

13.60 ± 4.76

26

14.81 ± 4.76

0.369

-0.520

shs_agency

2nd

11

14.09 ± 3.93

-0.213

11

16.90 ± 3.90

-0.901

0.097

-1.209

shs_pathway

1st

25

15.96 ± 3.73

26

17.15 ± 3.73

0.258

-0.655

shs_pathway

2nd

11

16.48 ± 3.08

-0.284

11

17.68 ± 3.06

-0.287

0.363

-0.657

shs

1st

25

29.56 ± 7.88

26

31.96 ± 7.88

0.282

-0.667

shs

2nd

11

30.49 ± 6.38

-0.258

11

34.56 ± 6.33

-0.721

0.138

-1.130

esteem

1st

25

12.64 ± 1.20

26

12.42 ± 1.20

0.522

0.180

esteem

2nd

11

13.55 ± 1.24

-0.753

11

12.91 ± 1.24

-0.404

0.231

0.529

mlq_search

1st

25

15.12 ± 3.29

26

15.38 ± 3.29

0.775

-0.110

mlq_search

2nd

11

15.52 ± 3.14

-0.167

11

15.18 ± 3.14

0.085

0.798

0.143

mlq_presence

1st

25

14.16 ± 3.97

26

13.54 ± 3.97

0.578

0.267

mlq_presence

2nd

11

14.81 ± 3.49

-0.278

11

14.20 ± 3.48

-0.283

0.683

0.262

mlq

1st

25

29.28 ± 6.74

26

28.92 ± 6.74

0.851

0.083

mlq

2nd

11

30.32 ± 6.11

-0.242

11

29.37 ± 6.09

-0.103

0.716

0.222

empower

1st

25

19.76 ± 4.21

26

19.96 ± 4.21

0.865

-0.154

empower

2nd

11

20.09 ± 3.11

-0.250

11

20.33 ± 3.07

-0.284

0.853

-0.188

ismi_resistance

1st

25

14.84 ± 2.63

26

14.77 ± 2.63

0.924

0.039

ismi_resistance

2nd

11

15.45 ± 2.46

-0.337

11

14.92 ± 2.45

-0.084

0.614

0.292

ismi_discrimation

1st

25

12.20 ± 3.17

26

10.42 ± 3.17

0.051

1.050

ismi_discrimation

2nd

11

11.01 ± 2.70

0.701

11

10.57 ± 2.68

-0.090

0.703

0.260

sss_affective

1st

25

10.36 ± 4.10

26

9.23 ± 4.10

0.330

0.799

sss_affective

2nd

11

10.41 ± 3.09

-0.034

11

8.93 ± 3.05

0.209

0.264

1.042

sss_behavior

1st

25

10.28 ± 4.17

26

8.88 ± 4.17

0.237

0.815

sss_behavior

2nd

11

9.57 ± 3.27

0.417

11

8.89 ± 3.24

-0.002

0.626

0.397

sss_cognitive

1st

25

8.20 ± 4.21

26

8.08 ± 4.21

0.917

0.074

sss_cognitive

2nd

11

8.89 ± 3.28

-0.410

11

7.88 ± 3.25

0.116

0.473

0.600

sss

1st

25

28.84 ± 11.63

26

26.19 ± 11.63

0.420

0.714

sss

2nd

11

28.91 ± 8.62

-0.018

11

25.76 ± 8.51

0.116

0.392

0.849

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(61.71) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.80)

2st

t(64.75) = -0.25, p = 0.805, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.84)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(58.11) = -0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.35)

2st

t(65.18) = 0.21, p = 0.837, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.89 to 2.33)

ras_confidence

1st

t(56.35) = 0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.47)

2st

t(66.25) = -0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-3.83 to 3.81)

ras_willingness

1st

t(56.10) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.03)

2st

t(66.44) = 1.32, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.36)

ras_goal

1st

t(56.62) = 0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.87)

2st

t(66.05) = 0.94, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.39)

ras_reliance

1st

t(52.79) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.04)

2st

t(68.99) = 1.63, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -1.31, 95% CI (-0.36 to 3.60)

ras_domination

1st

t(62.95) = -2.00, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.00)

2st

t(65.06) = -0.01, p = 0.992, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.92 to 1.90)

symptom

1st

t(51.23) = 0.53, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-4.12 to 7.11)

2st

t(67.19) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-6.30 to 6.28)

slof_work

1st

t(52.81) = -0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.33 to 2.02)

2st

t(68.99) = -0.63, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-4.19 to 2.18)

slof_relationship

1st

t(54.43) = 0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-3.33 to 3.42)

2st

t(67.93) = 0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-3.04 to 5.42)

satisfaction

1st

t(56.85) = 1.35, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.28 to 6.56)

2st

t(65.89) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-4.32 to 6.09)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(53.66) = 0.71, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.80)

2st

t(68.58) = -0.59, p = 0.558, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.28 to 1.79)

mhc_social

1st

t(56.35) = -0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.55 to 2.47)

2st

t(66.25) = -0.81, p = 0.421, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.56 to 2.35)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(55.77) = 0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.95 to 4.43)

2st

t(66.72) = -0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-5.94 to 3.63)

resilisnce

1st

t(55.26) = 0.38, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.00)

2st

t(67.17) = 0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-2.34 to 4.13)

social_provision

1st

t(54.99) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.22)

2st

t(67.41) = 1.54, p = 0.129, Cohen d = -1.06, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.90)

els_value_living

1st

t(55.57) = 0.73, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.32)

2st

t(66.89) = 0.61, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.87)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(55.64) = 2.02, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.02 to 3.59)

2st

t(66.83) = 0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.00)

els

1st

t(54.96) = 1.55, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.72 to 5.57)

2st

t(67.45) = 0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.60 to 5.39)

social_connect

1st

t(51.21) = -0.13, p = 0.898, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-5.72 to 5.03)

2st

t(67.13) = -0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-6.71 to 5.31)

shs_agency

1st

t(54.31) = 0.91, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.46 to 3.88)

2st

t(68.04) = 1.68, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (-0.53 to 6.14)

shs_pathway

1st

t(54.35) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.90 to 3.29)

2st

t(68.01) = 0.92, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.41 to 3.81)

shs

1st

t(53.60) = 1.09, p = 0.282, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-2.03 to 6.83)

2st

t(68.62) = 1.50, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (-1.34 to 9.47)

esteem

1st

t(69.00) = -0.64, p = 0.522, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.45)

2st

t(69.00) = -1.21, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.42)

mlq_search

1st

t(61.84) = 0.29, p = 0.775, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.11)

2st

t(64.78) = -0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.02 to 2.33)

mlq_presence

1st

t(56.96) = -0.56, p = 0.578, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.85 to 1.61)

2st

t(65.81) = -0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.58 to 2.36)

mlq

1st

t(58.53) = -0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-4.14 to 3.42)

2st

t(65.01) = -0.37, p = 0.716, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-6.15 to 4.25)

empower

1st

t(51.01) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.17 to 2.57)

2st

t(66.45) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.87)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(60.38) = -0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.40)

2st

t(64.66) = -0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.56)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(55.45) = -2.00, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 1.05, 95% CI (-3.56 to 0.00)

2st

t(67.00) = -0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.73 to 1.85)

sss_affective

1st

t(51.52) = -0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.17)

2st

t(67.94) = -1.13, p = 0.264, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-4.08 to 1.14)

sss_behavior

1st

t(52.66) = -1.20, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.74 to 0.95)

2st

t(69.00) = -0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.45 to 2.09)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(52.40) = -0.10, p = 0.917, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.49 to 2.24)

2st

t(68.95) = -0.72, p = 0.473, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.77)

sss

1st

t(51.14) = -0.81, p = 0.420, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-9.19 to 3.89)

2st

t(66.89) = -0.86, p = 0.392, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-10.44 to 4.14)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(29.04) = 1.14, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.09)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(25.98) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.88)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(24.68) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.33 to 2.63)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(24.51) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.11)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(24.87) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.74)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(22.29) = 2.25, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.24)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(30.27) = 1.16, p = 0.508, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.24)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(21.32) = -1.68, p = 0.216, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.55)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(22.30) = -0.74, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.35 to 1.11)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(23.36) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.86 to 2.22)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(25.04) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.87 to 4.01)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(22.85) = -0.82, p = 0.838, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.88)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(24.68) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.90)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(24.27) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.72 to 2.37)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(23.92) = 1.36, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.69 to 3.35)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(23.74) = 1.11, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.09)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(24.13) = 1.06, p = 0.598, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(24.18) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.85)

els

1st vs 2st

t(23.71) = 0.92, p = 0.739, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.55)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(21.31) = 1.11, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.27 to 4.16)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(23.28) = 2.17, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.10 to 4.09)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(23.30) = 0.69, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.09)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(22.81) = 1.73, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.51 to 5.70)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(42.86) = 1.10, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.38)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(29.17) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.17 to 1.76)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(25.12) = 0.69, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.62)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(26.32) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-3.14 to 4.02)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(21.19) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.52)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(27.84) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.65)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(24.05) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.59)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(21.50) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.94)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(22.20) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.49)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(22.04) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.26)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(21.26) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.68 to 2.82)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(28.72) = 1.91, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.35)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(25.78) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.46)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(24.53) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.76 to 3.21)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(24.36) = -1.79, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.12)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(24.71) = -0.99, p = 0.663, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.24 to 0.79)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(22.22) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.00)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(29.89) = -0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.96)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(21.28) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.65 to 2.05)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(22.23) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.46)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(23.25) = -1.19, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-4.01 to 1.08)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(24.87) = 1.39, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.11 to 5.77)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(22.76) = 1.27, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(24.53) = 1.11, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.19 to 3.96)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(24.13) = 0.82, p = 0.836, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.83 to 4.27)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(23.79) = 0.93, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.94)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(23.61) = -0.72, p = 0.954, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.89)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(24.00) = 0.98, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.05)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(24.05) = 2.12, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.97)

els

1st vs 2st

t(23.59) = 1.78, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.59)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(21.27) = 1.38, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.91 to 4.52)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(23.17) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.49)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(23.19) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.09)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(22.72) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.18 to 4.04)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(41.97) = 2.04, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.80)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(28.84) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.37)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(24.95) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.61)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(26.10) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.55 to 4.62)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(21.15) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.47)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(27.56) = 0.84, p = 0.820, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.11)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(23.92) = -1.70, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-2.63 to 0.26)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(21.45) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.28)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(22.13) = -0.99, p = 0.661, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.77)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(21.98) = 0.98, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.14)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(21.23) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-3.18 to 3.32)

Plot

Clinical significance